Slashdot Mirror

It's not just rural areas that are affected. Some neighborhoods in cities lack broadband options as well. Verizon was given concessions to install FiOS in New York City, but left out certain areas, i.e. City sues Verizon for breaking its promise to make Fios available to residents. This isn't a zoning issue, it's about maximizing corporate profits. So even with the population density of New York City, there are areas where the profit margin is not high enough, at least for Verizon, to provide broadband service. And, just in case you think wireless is an option, the cell tower coverage in New York City isn't 100% reliable either. It's a big city, and the quality of coverage varies greatly across different neighborhoods.

Yes, it seems way to early to evaluate the program. This is the very first report; basically it's saying "the program just started". Clicking through the links leads to this one: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/a...
with more numbers in the summary:

The state agency responsible for economic development across New York says companies last year created 76 of the nearly 2,100 new jobs promised over five years in return for tax breaks under the Cuomo administration's Start-Up NY program.

The first annual report from the Department of Economic Development says 30 companies began operating in 2014 among 54 initially approved for the program.

According to the report, they made $1.7 million of some $91 million investments promised over five years as part of Start-Up NY. The program has established 356 tax-free zones at 62 colleges and universities that act as sponsors.

The agency says another 26 businesses have been approved so far this year, while 12 have withdrawn applications.

Gain control? For what purpose?

For the same reason politicians become politicians (and policemen become pigs) — the feeling of control over fellow human beings gives them a high...

The way I see it, if this all bogus, we end up with cleaner air, less pollution and a better place to live.

Not obviously, actually. Tesla's wonderful batteries, for example, are a hell to make and aren't particularly easy to dispose of either. The early "green" toilets don't use enough water to do the job quite often — requiring multiple flushes, where an old one would've done with one. The mandatory recycling of this and that requires additional trucks on the road to haul the "special" refuse without clear benefits to the environment — in fact, often enough the stuff ends up in general refuse anyway after incurring all of the costs (financial and environmental) of the separate handling. The certified "green" buildings (sometimes?) use more energy, than regular structures...

You win either way.

Yeah. There is this line of thinking — Blaise Pascal, in his time, put forth the same idea on whether or not God exists.

Good to see, you aren't (any longer?) claiming it is the science, that drives your thinking about global warming... You aren't alone.

What he is doing is, in fact, money transferring. He takes money and transfers it. That defines his activity. Which means he needs to keep records. Why do people involved in money transferring need to keep records? To prevent money laundering.

HSBC laundered hundreds of billions of dollars and admitted as such, yet the justice department decided to forego criminal prosecution.

After much public outrage and senate hearings, the justice department settled on a $1.92 billion penalty (against HSBC $18 billion annual profits).

How strongly do you agree with the federal government's stance on money laundering? From over here, it seems that the money laundering laws are only applied to the small players, used as "discretionary enforcement" as a tool of oppression. It's rule by thugs.

What's so bad about money laundering then?

theoretically, a cargo ship is more efficient than a train assuming you are only using hypothetical efficiencies and not real world scenarios

Then why does so much Chinese freight get shipped directly to NY harbor? http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120805/TRANSPORTATION/308059971

Just because something happens someway doesn't mean it is the most efficient way. Driving 55mph is far more efficient than 70mph (or the 80mph or 90mph that many people drive), and yet the speed limit on the interstate is usually 70mph. Maybe there are outside influences such as labor agreements or port fees or tariffs? Maybe the ship is then used to pick up containers at NY and transport to Europe? Maybe LA and San Diego or too crowded? Or maybe keeping the containers on the ship is cheaper than paying the storage fee in port? Or maybe since shipments are pooled, there might be a regulatory requirement that something be offloaded in NY so everybody else is basically along for the ride.

Who knows why anybody would want the goods to be in transit longer on the ship so they could be shipped back by rail or truck inland, but they must have their reason. Just like we all have our reason for driving faster than the most fuel efficient point for our cars.

theoretically, a cargo ship is more efficient than a train assuming you are only using hypothetical efficiencies and not real world scenarios

Then why does so much Chinese freight get shipped directly to NY harbor? http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120805/TRANSPORTATION/308059971

I find any ideological opposition to regulation curious.

- I find it curious that you find it curious.

Are you aware that the current crash came after a period of deregulation of the financial industry comparable only to what happened before 1923?

- are you aware that all of the regulations into financial industry and all other industries were passed in the 20th century?

I know that you are unaware that you are wrong.

1. Before 1923 there were much fewer regulations than any time after it.

2. Deregulation is a myth. About 15000 new financial regulations were created during the Bush era. In total there are over 100,000 various financial regulations concerning banks, investment companies, brokerages, exchanges, etc.

3. Real deregulation would have increased competition in banking. In reality there is more an more regulation and the competition in banking and finance is non-existent. There are no new banks, there are no new investment brokers, there is nothing new happening in the business. In fact there are much FEWER banks and much FEWER investment brokers in USA. Hell, USA even lost an exchange.

you'll find not only that the current crisis is nothing new

- maybe you should read my journal and go over my comments before offering your suggestions.

The current crisis is indeed nothing new, it is a logical continuation of the same thing that has been in the works since the Federal reserve was established and especially since Nixon defaulted on the dollar.

Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the credit bubble of the last decade and the current one and the one before and the one before and the one before and the one before.

Glass-Steagall was actually put in place to counteract the moral hazard created by the FDIC, but Glass Steagall is not the culprit in the credit bubbles, the culprit is Federal reserve bank, Treasury and Congress, which pushed forward various credit expanding agenda.

In your no-regulation world, how would you avoid that a fireworks factory is setup right next to your house (or maybe a nice nuclear waste treatment plant)?

- Federal regulations have nothing to do with local zoning bylaws, however taken to the logical conclusion, should I not want a firework factory or a nuclear waste treatment plant near my house?

The regulations and laws that are created by the government, allow private property rights to be dismantled at the whim of the politicians and their most connected business bodies. The only thing that is necessary to prevent any problem of pollution is to adhere to very strict private property laws and abolish all publicly owned assets, because again, they are the moral hazard.

The gov't doesn't have a problem with a company destroying a resource near you, the government provides liability protection for companies doing it.

> The US Treasury and the Fed bailed out both of them. Your distinction is driven by political ideology.

Nonsense. The idea that the economic crash is due to Freddie and Fanny has been debunked many times including in the links I posted plus many more. Many conservative economists know that it is a wrong idea. Even the Republican members of the congressional commission that investigated it know it to be false.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-21/romney-gingrich-bid-to-pin-crisis-on-government-ignores-culprits.html

Tell me - what did Freddie and Fanny have to do with the collapse of Lehman, the event everyone points to as the beginning of the collapse?

And what culpability do the banks have for selling flat out fraudulent mortgages to F&F?

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120222/REAL_ESTATE/120229979

As it turns out, there's a current push to change this situation. It sounds like the illegal bit is soliciting investments in return for equity "from unaccredited investorsâ"defined as investors with less than $1 million in assetsâ"who are not friends or family."

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120111/SMALLBIZ/120119980#

It sounds like a great idea to me.

4) The stimulus funds did not "take over" any industries. Give one example. Just one. Literally, I want you to name a single American business which is now government owned because of the stimulus. Either that, or come back and apologize for lying.

Stimulus funds came with strings... no, ROPES attached and did amount to a takeover. You want an example?

Second, stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries.

Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes.

Here is a story about banks either turning down TARP or leaving the program after the government started changing the rules after the money went out.

5) TARP was passed by Bush, and didn't take over banks in any case.

Passed under Bush, about three months before he left office. Completely administered under Obama and extended by Geitner. Geitner, btw, is the guy who didn't pay his taxes that Obama made treasury secretary. I guess you are OK with that too. Seriously, would you have been OK if Bush put a drug addict in charge of the DEA and a Klan Grand Wizard in charge of Civil Rights?

6) The health care law does not take over anything. It puts some new regulations on private insurance companies, prevents individuals from abusing the system with an individual mandate, and helps individuals for whom the mandate would be burdensome by providing them with subsidies. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. The man is lying to you.

Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If you don't believe that, you are lying to yourself. If you think that it took over 2000 pages of "we have to pass it to know what's in it" to do nothing more than, "It puts some new regulations on private insurance companies, prevents individuals from abusing the system with an individual mandate, and helps individuals for whom the mandate would be burdensome by providing them with subsidies.", then you should not leave the house without your helmet.

7) New environmental controls?

Do you not watch the news? Look up the Keystone Pipeline. You'll also notice how the rejection of the pipeline helps out Obama supporters, like Warren Buffett. Obama rejecting the pipeline is also a boon for China, who will get the oil instead of us.

Of course, there is also the strict limitations on drilling in the Gulf... or off the east or west coast or on land and especially in Alaska. We can't drill in the Gulf of Mexico, but China can for Cuba. Deep water drilling is banned in the Gulf of Mexico, but Obama funded it in Brazil. That oil and those jobs are also going to China, by the way.

Strange. I just noticed that it seems that China is benefiting much more for Obama's environmental concerns than the actual environment is, which was my point. Obama's regulations do nothing for the environment, harm it if anything. The rejection of the keystone pipeline means that oil w

You might also want to pay particular attention to the fact that this is private property

Like many things the wealthy of America clutch to their chests with greed, Zucotti Park is heavily subsidized by public monies, asshole.

$20.1 million in government subsidies, primarily since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, according to a new report by Good Jobs New York. Meanwhile, as previously reported, Brookfield itself received about $460,000 in subsidies for the building since Sept. 11.

So, it's privately owned in name only, in reality it is apparently subsidized by those bloodsucking, useless suckfly taxpayers.

Oh, did I call you a complete assshole yet? ASSHOLE!

Bravisimo,one must let an asshole know he is an ashole,in the asshole dept.

You might also want to pay particular attention to the fact that this is private property

Like many things the wealthy of America clutch to their chests with greed, Zucotti Park is heavily subsidized by public monies, asshole.

$20.1 million in government subsidies, primarily since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, according to a new report by Good Jobs New York. Meanwhile, as previously reported, Brookfield itself received about $460,000 in subsidies for the building since Sept. 11.

So, it's privately owned in name only, in reality it is apparently subsidized by those bloodsucking, useless suckfly taxpayers.

Oh, did I call you a complete assshole yet? ASSHOLE!

you don't point out that there is a hell of a lot of money sloshing around in all this, I doubt that these peoples motives are as pure, they are not just worried about 'national security.' Fraud in defense contracting is extremely common. See Boeing tanker contract fraud, BAE systems Bribery and the primary contractor for trailblazer, SAIC, has had previous fraud prosecutions for the FBI information system they worked on and the New York citytime contract: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110527/FREE/110529884 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/business/16tanker.html?_r=2 http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0210/US_settles_with_BAE_in_Saudi_bribery_case.html This kind of activity is very common in the defense department and more generally in corporate america, see the massive amount of fraud that at least partially caused the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The U.S. needs to attack white collar crime much more vigorously. http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/top-secret-america.html http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/13-bankers-vrs-brooksley-born.html

There is a hell of a lot of money sloshing around in all this, I doubt that these peoples motives are as pure as you present them, they are not just worried about 'national security.' Fraud in defense contracting is extremely common. See Boeing tanker contract fraud, BAE systems Bribery and the primary contractor for trailblazer, SAIC, has had previous fraud prosecutions for the FBI information system they worked on and the New York citytime contract: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110527/FREE/110529884 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/business/16tanker.html?_r=2 http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0210/US_settles_with_BAE_in_Saudi_bribery_case.html This kind of activity is very common in the defense department and more generally in corporate america, see the massive amount of fraud that at least partially caused the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The U.S. needs to attack white collar crime much more vigorously. http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/top-secret-america.html http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/13-bankers-vrs-brooksley-born.html

Men with no oversight are doing what they will in the name of national security because they've convinced themselves that they can't permit 9/11 to reoccur, and that it was their fault. They've driven themselves mad, falling into the mentality of "those who prefer security to freedom." It's not that they're innately cruel tyrants, or sadists, it's that they're paranoid and guilt-wracked—a horribly dangerous combination when you add on the "defend the collective" mentality that causes police officers to protect each other when corruption charges manifest.

you don't point out that there is a hell of a lot of money sloshing around in all this, I doubt that these peoples motives are as pure as you present them, they are not just worried about 'national security.' Fraud in defense contracting is extremely common. See Boeing tanker contract fraud, BAE systems Bribery and the primary contractor for trailblazer, SAIC, has had previous fraud prosecutions for the FBI information system they worked on and the New York citytime contract: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110527/FREE/110529884 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/business/16tanker.html?_r=2 http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0210/US_settles_with_BAE_in_Saudi_bribery_case.html This kind of activity is very common in the defense department and more generally in corporate america, see the massive amount of fraud that at least partially caused the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The U.S. needs to attack white collar crime much more vigorously. http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/top-secret-america.html http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/13-bankers-vrs-brooksley-born.html

Under the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the federal government will spend $1.4 billion in New York state alone over the next four years to help health care providers digitize their operations.

So, the money spent modernizing New York's health care records system over the course of the next 4 years will be less than what it keeps NASA going for one month. (Not that 1.4e9 isn't a lot of money!)

Murdoch bought MySpace in 2005 for $580 million. Not such a hot property these days. I wouldn't put any money into Murdoch's internet instincts.